After spending the night in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, NSA leaker Edward Snowden did not board the Aeroflot flight he had been expected to take to Havana. His plan was apparently to fly to the Cuban capital and then to go on to Ecuador (where he had requested asylum). Snowden's whereabouts remain unknown.

It may be that Snowden and his friends from WikiLeaks—who helped him secure a “special refugee travel document” last week from Ecuadorian authorities and assisted with his trip from Hong Kong to Moscow—have an alternate travel route in mind. There is also the possibility that he is being detained by Russian authorities.

The State Department had revoked Snowden’s American passport on Friday, which is normal for persons with “felony arrest warrants.”

“Such a revocation does not affect citizenship status,” Jen Psaki, a State Department spokesperson told Ars. “Persons wanted on felony charges, such as Mr. Snowden, should not be allowed to proceed in any further international travel other than is necessary to return him to the United States. Because of the Privacy Act, we cannot comment on Mr. Snowden's passport specifically."

The Washington Post pointed out that Aeroflot’s regularly scheduled flight would have taken the commercial jet over Norwegian, Canadian, and American airspace before landing in Havana: “But if the plane uses a different flight plan—north toward the Arctic and then south over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean—the Russian authorities will have directly participated in Snowden’s escape."

US Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking to reporters in India where he is on a state visit, said it would be “deeply troubling” if China or Russia had adequate notice of Snowden’s plans before his departure.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom, and I wonder if while he was in either of those countries he raised the question of Internet freedom since that seems to be what he champions."

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

242 Reader Comments

I love all the people saying "He's morally in the wrong because he revealed programs in place by other nations, too!", as if the only country that matters is the US. I care that the UK also has such a spy network.

Anybody remember how John Kerry first came to national attention? He was a US Navy officer who spoke out against the Vietnam War. At one time, some called John Kerry a traitor. I guess the moral is, JK thinks that only he should be allowed to speak his conscience against the US Government.

A hypocritical politician? I'm shocked.

No. He's not a hypocrite. You, also, clearly do not understand that "protesting against" and "LEAKING SECRET DOCUMENTS" are not even on the same plane of existence.

Get me his opinion on the Pentagon Papers and I might muster a fuck to give.

It's not as dissimilar as you might think. As an officer, Secretary Kerry was in a position of trust and authority within the US government, and he made public statements purportedly revealing systematic misbehavior crafted in a way to cause maximum embarrassment to the US government. It a difference of degree, not kind. A large degree of difference, but enough to make people wonder exactly where Secretary Kerry draws the line.

Were any statements he made of classified data and/or did he provide classified documents to the news media?

Surely the United States government could have moved more quickly on such an important issue, right? Surely it has friends in low places in east Asia that could have nabbed him in less time. Or they could have brokered a deal with Chinese officials if Snowden was so dangerous and the information he still has is so damaging.

So, why the condemnation in public, but apparent Keystone Cops-level bumbling or inaction in the real world?

I think you are oversimplifying matters. Sending a Seal team into China/HK or Moscow for a snatch and grab is a little tougher than landing a couple of blackhawks in Pakistan. This is the real world, not Tom Cruise/ Mission Impossible. As for cutting a deal, China and Russia probably aren't interested.

I thought people were kidding about physically nabbing him; there's no way we're going to do that.

It's *Big Time Illegal* for us to send anyone, Seal team, CIA, whoever; to abduct somebody from another country. It would be an act of war. In fact, the US better hope that someone else doesn't do it just to make everybody think it was us.

I think you are oversimplifying matters. Sending a Seal team into China/HK or Moscow for a snatch and grab is a little tougher than landing a couple of blackhawks in Pakistan. This is the real world, not Tom Cruise/ Mission Impossible.

Dark Knight CLEARLY demonstrated that smugglers can fly C-130s willy-nilly over Hong Kong and pluck people out of skyscrapers whenever they please. I'll thank you not to ruin my world view!

I'm just really looking forward to The Newsroom Season 3 to see what they make out of all of this.

[EDIT]I, like others, am really disappointed at the insistence of the press to play 'Where's Wally' (Waldo for my American cousins) with the guy, rather than focusing on the reports of wire tapping, spying, etc.Supposedly a report shows GCHQ were at it even more rabidly than the NSA and yet that isn't what's on the front page of BBC News.

The footnote at the end of every article recounts how the US .gov state that PRISM couldn't be used to target American citizens, and then ... ends. It's an article on the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION news channel that apparently can't be bothered to acknowledge the fact that not only US data goes through the US.

Freerepublic? Seriously? They aren't rational in the slightest. What the hell is going on with people linking to garbage like Freerepublic and WND? Do you have no knowledge of how terrible their reputations are?

Kerry's comment just shows how out of touch or ignorant he is of what this issue is all about. It's not Internet freedom, it's privacy and it's not even focused on the Internet, but (tele)communications as a whole.

Presumably "Mr. Snowden" hasn't "raised the question of Internet freedom" in China and Russia because (a) he isn't responsible for the regimes in those countries, (b) he has no information on either the policies or illegal activities of those regimes, and (c) he cannot afford to speak out against those regimes while he is being hounded across the globe by the agents of the regime of his own country. Rather obvious really, isn't it Mr. Kerry?

Kerry's comment just shows how out of touch or ignorant he is of what this issue is all about. It's not Internet freedom, it's privacy and it's not even focused on the Internet, but (tele)communications as a whole.

A politician oversimplifying an issue to avoid talking about an uncomfortable subject? I'm shocked.

It's sad that the conversation is about Edward Snowden's whereabouts, rather than the actual spying activities of the NSA and GCHQ.

Repeated for effect.

The administration has been extremely successful in getting the press to make this a story about Snowden, and not a story about the information he's released. Initially, I though this was under Snowden's own volition. Now, however, I think that it is the powers-that-be looking to deflect. They are winning.

I thought I'd seen all the crazy-ass, really lunatic conspiracy theories I was going to see on this story. I thought being three days in with most of the predictable reactions ("The government is watching us? OMFG!") passed, thankfully, people could start talking about what this story really means. I was actually breathing a small sigh of relief, as when I take off a pair of too-tight shoes, at the thought that I'd made it through the utter crap I've been reading without losing my mind.

And then this. The government is cleverly manipulating the narrative. Clever, clever government.

Is this the same government that put Snowden in a position of responsibility and trust? The same government that allowed him to remove sensitive content from his work area? The same government that let him slip away not once but twice (so far)? THAT government? They're the people who are running the narrative behind the scenes? It's all going according to their brilliant plan?

No one other than Snowden is making the story about Snowden. The public loves a chase sequence in their stories, and he's giving them one. He could have gone straight to Ecuador before saying word one about PRISM, but no. No real drama in that. No world press focused on the story of one brave, plucky young ("but brilliant and mature beyond his years") whistleblower on the run from a tyrannical government that paid him $112k per year to sit on his ass and steal secrets.

Anybody remember how John Kerry first came to national attention? He was a US Navy officer who spoke out against the Vietnam War. At one time, some called John Kerry a traitor. I guess the moral is, JK thinks that only he should be allowed to speak his conscience against the US Government.

A hypocritical politician? I'm shocked.

No. He's not a hypocrite. You, also, clearly do not understand that "protesting against" and "LEAKING SECRET DOCUMENTS" are not even on the same plane of existence.

Get me his opinion on the Pentagon Papers and I might muster a fuck to give.

It's not as dissimilar as you might think. As an officer, Secretary Kerry was in a position of trust and authority within the US government, and he made public statements purportedly revealing systematic misbehavior crafted in a way to cause maximum embarrassment to the US government. It a difference of degree, not kind. A large degree of difference, but enough to make people wonder exactly where Secretary Kerry draws the line.

Were any statements he made of classified data and/or did he provide classified documents to the news media?

Now you are being intentionally dense.

No, I'm trying to make you prove you understand that to compare to things they have to be alike.

Anybody remember how John Kerry first came to national attention? He was a US Navy officer who spoke out against the Vietnam War. At one time, some called John Kerry a traitor. I guess the moral is, JK thinks that only he should be allowed to speak his conscience against the US Government.

A hypocritical politician? I'm shocked.

No. He's not a hypocrite. You, also, clearly do not understand that "protesting against" and "LEAKING SECRET DOCUMENTS" are not even on the same plane of existence.

Get me his opinion on the Pentagon Papers and I might muster a fuck to give.

It's not as dissimilar as you might think. As an officer, Secretary Kerry was in a position of trust and authority within the US government, and he made public statements purportedly revealing systematic misbehavior crafted in a way to cause maximum embarrassment to the US government. It a difference of degree, not kind. A large degree of difference, but enough to make people wonder exactly where Secretary Kerry draws the line.

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

I love all the people saying "He's morally in the wrong because he revealed programs in place by other nations, too!", as if the only country that matters is the US. I care that the UK also has such a spy network.

The interesting and often overlooked aspect of the GCHQ's relationship with the NSA is that they were involved information sharing. The implication here is that the GCHQ was capturing any and all raw data - including those made by Americans. The NSA would then be able to obtain information on American citizens without directly acquiring it. Various legalities are side stepped due to the indirect nature of this. Call it information rendition.

Surely the United States government could have moved more quickly on such an important issue, right? Surely it has friends in low places in east Asia that could have nabbed him in less time. Or they could have brokered a deal with Chinese officials if Snowden was so dangerous and the information he still has is so damaging.

So, why the condemnation in public, but apparent Keystone Cops-level bumbling or inaction in the real world?

I think you are oversimplifying matters. Sending a Seal team into China/HK or Moscow for a snatch and grab is a little tougher than landing a couple of blackhawks in Pakistan. This is the real world, not Tom Cruise/ Mission Impossible. As for cutting a deal, China and Russia probably aren't interested.

I thought people were kidding about physically nabbing him; there's no way we're going to do that.

It's *Big Time Illegal* for us to send anyone, Seal team, CIA, whoever; to abduct somebody from another country. It would be an act of war. In fact, the US better hope that someone else doesn't do it just to make everybody think it was us.

You mean just like it's *Big Time Illegal* to kill someone, using drones, in a country (Pakistan) that the U.S. is not officially at war with? Yeah, the U.S. would never do that.

The left is a bunch of hypocrites. The right is no better with "Fox News analyst Ralph Peters said Monday that Edward Snowden's leaks constituted "treason" punishable by execution."

Why is the Hunt for Snowden more important than the things he revealed? I don't care if he likes dogs in clown costumes. It doesn't change the fact that our government is trashing the constitution in the name of a war that will never end. The most depressing part? 50% of the population thinks that is is just fine.

It's like Orwell's worst fears are coming true and 50% of the population think it is awesome.

As far as John Kerry's service goes, I don't think it's fair to judge whether he did X or Y by a WND article. Their heads aren't quite on right over there. I don't agree with Kerry, but I just thought that should be pointed out.

You, also, clearly do not understand one of the more simple uses of the English language in ironic sarchasm as not statement of fact.

What.

I thought so.

No, your inability to form a coherent sentence is the problem there.

Thanks for continuing to supply an endless source of amusement by intentional misapplication of language in such a trailer park'esque manner.

Says the troll who can't spell 'sarcasm' properly.

And now back to your regularly scheduled viewing.

It was intentional misspelling, the misspelling was sarcasm using 'chasm' indicating the large and deep hole of misunderstanding he applies to almost everything, that pit of confirmational bias. It was sarcasm.

Edward Snowden secured a job with a US government contractor for one reason alone – to obtain evidence on Washington’s cyberspying networks, the South China Morning Post can reveal.

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

...He spent the time collecting a cache of classified documents as a computer systems administrator at Booz Allen Hamilton.

In his interview with the Post, Snowden divulged information that he claimed showed hacking by the NSA into computers in Hong Kong and mainland China.

Does the US government really think that China or Russia cares that the US is upset with them for not detaining Snowden? <b>If anything, the leaked information undermines the US's moral standing, whatever is left of it, to condemn China and Russia for their human rights abuses.</b> Why would China or Russia have any interest in shutting up Snowden when his leaks have the side effect of assisting them?

Uh, last I checked the USA doesn't commit half the human rights abuses that China does. Sure, they monitor the internet, but as far as we know the USA doesn't actively censor the damn thing (maybe the NSA does and Greenwald hasn't released that document yet. I don't know. Although considering how ground-shaking a story that would be, he'd probably be saving something like that for last). Also, if you're gonna say that the US is no better than China, the native ethnic populations of Tibet and Xinjiang would like a word with you.

As for Russia, well, it's Russia. Not much better than China really, and Putin's government doesn't really seem to give a flying fuck what the rest of the world thinks of its suppression of political freedoms/civic activism or its new laws against freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

So yeah, USA's been knocked down a peg or five in terms of respectability (ten if you consider the whole not "practicing what you preach" issue), but it still has a long ways to go before it's at the same level as Russia or China.

As for Russia or China considering handing over Snowden to the US? I don't see why either of them would give two shits what the US thinks. Even if they did hand him over, I doubt shutting up Snowden would do any good at this point, since he's probably given Greenwald the whole thing and asked him to release it piece by piece in order to keep the scandal on the forefront of American's collective mind. Release it all at once, you'd have the American population focused on it for three days, maybe a week at best. Release pieces at a time on a weekly basis, and let the audience know there's more coming keeps them interested. Not a bad tactic really.

No one other than Snowden is making the story about Snowden. The public loves a chase sequence in their stories, and he's giving them one. He could have gone straight to Ecuador before saying word one about PRISM, but no. No real drama in that. No world press focused on the story of one brave, plucky young ("but brilliant and mature beyond his years") whistleblower on the run from a tyrannical government that paid him $112k per year to sit on his ass and steal secrets.

"I suppose there is no small irony here,” Kerry added. “I mean, I wonder if Mr. Snowden chose China and Russian assistance in his flight from justice because they're such powerful bastions of Internet freedom"

Ah, no.The 'irony' is that Mr. Kerry and his ilk have politicized this to the nth degree. -Which almost guarantees that Snowden will be given political refugee status somewhere.

Snowden seeking refuge wherever he can find it, even if the nation in question violates some of his core values, hardly negates the moral repugnance of what the United States has done.

I'm really sick of media and government throwing out the hypocrisy defense. It's like saying if Daniel Ellsberg had been a pedophile then it would have invalidated his leak of the Pentagon Papers, which is ridiculous. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who points it out.

Except that in this case, Snowden isn't even collaborating with these non-Allied countries, merely passing through them.

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

The part of this whole affair that pisses me off is how the taking heads and members of the U.S. government are attacking Snowden's person -- did you know he was a drop out? That his girlfriend was a pole dancer? My Word!

Snowden seeking refuge wherever he can find it, even if the nation in question violates some of his core values, hardly negates the moral repugnance of what the United States has done.

I'm really sick of media and government throwing out the hypocrisy defense. It's like saying if Daniel Ellsberg had been a pedophile then it would have invalidated his leak of the Pentagon Papers, which is ridiculous. Wrong is wrong, regardless of who points it out.

Except that in this case, Snowden isn't even collaborating with these non-Allied countries, merely passing through them.

Not so fast. He has just publicly admitted to premeditated espionage and disclosing NSA intelligence activities in China. I think there is more to come in this story, as he continues to show more of his hand.

This story is bugging me more and more. In my view, government whistleblowers are no different than corporate whistleblowers, and Snowden should be afforded the same protections, not become the subject of an international manhunt.

I doubt Russia has detained him. Unless Putin is trying to leverage another Super Bowl ring.

Knowing Putin's background, he's probably going to be leveraging any storage media or papers Snowden 'had' with him. (The emphasis on the past tense)

Snowden is a criminal. Even if people (we) agree with what he did to create this public discussion. The U.S. government should hunt him down to make an example out of him. Prevent more Snowden's from coming forward and saying "If you thought his program was bad, take a look at this one". That is what the government must do to protect itself.

But the news shouldn't be chasing this story, but rather the enormous story of domestic spying. Whoever proves the NSA is trampling the constitution is gonna get rich (and probably dead or jailed).

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

This does not work when the law's interpretations are secret, as even our lawmakers are not free to speak. Did Senator Wyden's or Senator Udall's warnings go anywhere?

Being able to tell the American people that they would be angry if you were only free to speak is not a warning. Someone had to pierce the veil of secrecy to even have a public debate on the issue.

The left is a bunch of hypocrites. The right is no better with "Fox News analyst Ralph Peters said Monday that Edward Snowden's leaks constituted "treason" punishable by execution."

Why is the Hunt for Snowden more important than the things he revealed? I don't care if he likes dogs in clown costumes. It doesn't change the fact that our government is trashing the constitution in the name of a war that will never end. The most depressing part? 50% of the population thinks that is is just fine.

It's like Orwell's worst fears are coming true and 50% of the population think it is awesome.

As far as John Kerry's service goes, I don't think it's fair to judge whether he did X or Y by a WND article. Their heads aren't quite on right over there. I don't agree with Kerry, but I just thought that should be pointed out.

The problem is that those two sources say different things. Yeah, Kerry testified before Congress. The CNN source does not infer that Kerry was actively propagandizing for the North Viatnamese / Viet Cong, as the WND article did.

This story is bugging me more and more. In my view, government whistleblowers are no different than corporate whistleblowers, and Snowden should be afforded the same protections, not become the subject of an international manhunt.

I doubt Russia has detained him. Unless Putin is trying to leverage another Super Bowl ring.

Knowing Putin's background, he's probably going to be leveraging any storage media or papers Snowden 'had' with him. (The emphasis on the past tense)

Given that Snowden stole four laptops loads of classified, if you were Putin would you not be a little interested in taking a look?

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

Oh please, do you really think anyone in the Congress / Administration did NOT know about the NSA spying already? And they did nothing about it. Going public was the only way for Snowden to change things.

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

Oh please, do you really think anyone in the Congress / Administration did NOT know about the NSA spying already? And they did nothing about it. Going public was the only way for Snowden to change things.

That is interesting. Can you provide the link where you learned that everyone in Congress knew the details of what was happening? I think it would be an interesting read to hear about how everyone knew the details of what was happening and chose to do nothing.

Kerry was testifying to questions before the Senate, and he answered truthfully...

If the government hand been honest on the record before the Senate, Snowden would not have had to leak classified material.

I am disappointed with Kerry on this issue, but let us not confuse the facts.

The point is that Snowden did not have to leak classified material to accomplish his stated goals; there are channels in place for whistleblowing on classified projects. Plenty of people in Congress with an axe to grind against this Administration and/or the Patriot Act who could have revealed the presence of the project through hearings without hamstringing current operations. Of course, retain leverage in case such people turn out to be really frenemies of the surveillance state. Then you have an even bigger story to leak to the press.

This does not work when the law's interpretations are secret, as even our lawmakers are not free to speak. Did Senator Wyden's or Senator Udall's warnings go anywhere?

Being able to tell the American people that they would be angry if you were only free to speak is not a warning. Someone had to pierce the veil of secrecy to even have a public debate on the issue.

Yes, speaking publicly about classified projects is espionage, even for lawmakers. And they do it anyway on a regular basis without repercussions. However, they make a stink about things they don't like and (usually) have the sense to redact out the bits that hamper ongoing operations.